This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

36389

Vol. 63, No. 128

Monday, July 6, 1998

1A number of parties commented that these

interim-final regulations provided insufficient time

for rebuttals to substantive responses to a notice of

initiation (pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4)). As

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department will

consider individual requests for extension of that

five-day deadline based upon a showing of good

cause.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Antidumping, Steel Jacks et al.

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Initiation of Five-Year

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is

automatically initiating five-year

(‘‘sunset’’) reviews of the antidumping

and countervailing duty orders,

findings, and/or suspended

investigations listed below. The

International Trade Commission (‘‘the

Commission’’) is publishing

concurrently with this notice its notices

of Institution of Five-Year Review

covering these same orders and/or

suspended investigations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melissa G. Skinner, Office of Policy,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, at (202) 482–1560, or Vera

Libeau, Office of Investigations, U.S.

International Trade Commission, at

(202) 205–3176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of

the Act, an antidumping (‘‘AD’’) or

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order will

be revoked, or the suspended

investigation will be terminated, unless

revocation or termination would be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of (1) dumping or a

countervailable subsidy, and (2)

material injury to the domestic industry.

Parties wanting to participate in the

sunset review being conducted by the

Department must follow the separate

procedural regulations promulgated by

the Department (see Procedures for

Conducting Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’)

Reviews of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR

13516 (March 20, 1998)). 1 In addition,

because deadlines in a sunset review

are, in many instances, very short, we

urge interested parties to apply for

access to proprietary information under

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)

immediately following publication of

the notice of initiation of the sunset

review in the Federal Register. The

Department’s regulations on submission

of proprietary information and

eligibility to receive access to business

proprietary information under APO can

be found at 19 CFR 351.304–306 (see

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Proceedings: Administrative Protective

Order Procedures; Procedures for

Imposing Sanctions for Violation of a

Protective Order, 63 FR 24391 (May 4,

1998)). Finally, for guidance on

methodological or analytical issues

relevant to the Department’s conduct of

sunset reviews, you may wish to consult

the Department’s Policy Bulletin 98:3—

Policies Regarding the Conduct of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR

18871(April 16, 1998). We are making

information related to sunset

proceedings available to the public on

the Internet at the following address:

‘‘http://www.ita.doc.gov/

importladmin/records/sunset/’’.

Finally, the procedural rules regarding

filing, format, translation, service, and

certification of documents can be found

at 19 CFR 351.303 (see Antidumping

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final

rule, 62 FR 27295, 27406 (May 19,

1997)).

Initiation of Reviews

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218,

as amended, we are initiating sunset

reviews of the following antidumping

and countervailing duty orders,

findings, or suspended investigations:

Doc case no. ITC case

no. Country Product

A–122–006 ........................................................ AA–49 ... Canada ............................................................. Steel Jacks.

A–588–029 ........................................................ AA–85 ... Japan ................................................................ Fish Netting of Manmade Fiber.

A–427–030 ........................................................ AA–86 ... France ............................................................... Large Power Transformers.

A–475–031 ........................................................ AA–87 ... Italy ................................................................... Large Power Transformers.

A–588–032 ........................................................ AA–88 ... Japan ................................................................ Large Power Transformers.

A–843–803 ........................................................ AA–51 ... Kazakstan ......................................................... Titanium Sponge.

A–821–803 ........................................................ AA–51 ... Russia ............................................................... Titanium Sponge.

A–823–803 ........................................................ AA–51 ... Ukraine ............................................................. Titanium Sponge.

A–588–020 ........................................................ A–161 ... Japan ................................................................ Titanium Sponge.

A–588–038 ........................................................ AA–98 ... Japan ................................................................ Bicycle Speedometers.

A–602–039 ........................................................ AA–110 Australia ............................................................ Canned Bartlett Pears.

A–588–028 ........................................................ AA–111 Japan ................................................................ Roller Chain.
36390 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 1998 / Notices

This notice of initiation is being

published in accordance with section

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

Dated: June 29, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–17789 Filed 7–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–485–602]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof From Romania: Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On March 6, 1998, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on tapered

roller bearings and parts thereof,

finished or unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from

Romania. This review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period June 1, 1996, through May

31, 1997. We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have not changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

We received no comments from

interested parties with regard to the

Department’s preliminary determination

to grant Tehnoimportexport, S.A.

(‘‘TIE’’) a separate rate for this review.

Therefore, for the final results of review,

we reaffirm our determination that TIE

is entitled to a separate rate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carrie Blozy or Rick Johnson, Office of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–0374 or (202) 482–3818.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to 19

CFR Part 353 (April 1997).

Background

On March 6, 1998, the Department

published in the Federal Register (63

FR 11217) the preliminary results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on TRBs from

Romania (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We

gave interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results. We

received written comments from

respondent, TIE, and from Universal

Automotive Trading Company Ltd.

(‘‘Universal’’), an interested party.

Comments submitted consisted of

respondent’s case brief of April 6, 1998

and Universal’s rebuttal brief of April

13, 1998.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of TRBs from Romania.

These products include flange, take-up

cartridge, and hanger units

incorporating tapered roller bearings,

and tapered roller housings (except

pillow blocks) incorporating tapered

rollers, with or without spindles,

whether or not for automotive use. This

merchandise is currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers 8482.20.00,

8482.91.00, 8482.99.30, 8483.20.40,

8483.30.40, and 8483.90.20. Although

the HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of this

order remains dispositive. The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is June

1, 1996, through May 31, 1997.

Analysis of Comment Received

Comment 1: Respondent and

Universal assert that the Department

erred in its calculation of freight for

certain steel supplies imported from

Russia. Respondent states that, based on

the Department’s language in its

analysis memorandum, the longest

possible distance used in this review to

calculate freight for steel supplies

should be either the distance from the

Romanian steel mill to the Alexandria

factory (280 km) or from Constanza, the

port, to the Alexandria factory (350 km). Petitioner did not comment on this

issue.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondent and Universal. As

stated in the analysis memorandum for

the preliminary results, the Department

‘‘added to CIF surrogate values from

Indonesia a surrogate freight cost using

the shorter of the reported distances

from either the closest port to the

manufacturer’s factory, or from the

actual supplier to the manufacturer’s

factory.’’ See TIE Analysis

Memorandum for the Preliminary

Results of Review (‘‘Analysis

Memorandum’’) at page 5 (March 2,

1998). The Department established this

methodology for accounting for the

freight component of surrogate values in

Collated Roofing Nails from the People’s

Republic of China, 62 FR 25895 (May

12, 1997) (‘‘Nails’’). Thus, if the material

was domestically produced or imported

from a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)

supplier, we used the shorter of (a) the

distance between the closest Romanian

port and the factory, or (b) the distance

between the actual supplier and the

factory to calculate a freight cost.

As noted on page 5 of the Analysis

Memorandum, some of the distances

between Alexandria and NME suppliers

were not reported. For those missing

distances, the Department assigned a

distance of 3000 km, the longest

distance reported in the submission. See

Analysis Memorandum at page 5.

However, despite respondent’s

assertion, the Department correctly

calculated a freight cost for those inputs

using 350 km, which is the shorter of

the distance between Constanza and

Alexandria (350 km) and the distance

between Alexandria and the Russian

NME supplier (3000 km). Therefore, the

Department calculated freight in a

manner consistent with the

methodology established in Nails.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine the dumping margin (in

percent) for the period June 1, 1996,

through May 30, 1997, to be as follows:

Exporter Margin (percent)

TIE ............................................ 0.86

The Department will determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. For assessment purposes, we

have calculated an importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rate for the

merchandise based on the ratio of the

total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales during

the POR to the total quantity of sales

examined during the POR. The